It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And some people don't seem to be following Bedini's advice to start with completely discharged batteries for their test as you suggested they need to for accurate results. And they certainly don't seem to be measuring the total stored power in all of the batteries in controlled trials.
There is no evidence these folks know how to measure all the variables involved or make controlled experiments like a certified testing lab would.
Are you talking about that examiner.com article you posted? I did read that and it doesn't really prove anything. wmd_2008 is right, 300 people replicating the motor doesn't mean any of them are over unity. Exactly zero people have proven that claim.
Is Friedrich the guy who's getting a substantial share of the profits from selling maybe $100 worth of components for $4000?
We should take his "unbiased" word for it? For the umpteenth time, we need an independent lab to verify,
So basically he's saying "if you are looking for proof this thing works, don't ask me, I took mine apart so I don't have to show it to anybody and I don't need to prove it". And this is the guy you're saying can prove it? He says he can't/won't.
"I do not believe it is necessary to prove to anyone else."??? What? And he has a source of free energy but he's not going to leave it hooked up so he can use it? Even a gullible person has to smell that this stinks.
I hate to hurl ad-hominems against someone I don't even know, but what kind of moron thinks there's no need to prove a free energy machine, especially when he's the guy you send us to for proof?
Originally posted by cupocoffee
You already said in this thread that a large sample of people, like 300 people, reporting a positive result would be considered sufficient evidence. Now you're saying it's not. You just contradicted yourself.
The fact is, hundreds of people reporting a positive result DOES count as evidence. You already said it does.
Originally posted by -PLB-
So we first need to agree upon which experimental results would prove the claims. In case of the DVD these experimental results are someone making the correct pick over and over in a double blind listening test under supervision by an independent party. In case of a Bellini generator this could be someone letting his device power a certain load for a certain time period, without switching the batteries, while again under supervision of an independent party.
Until then, it is all hearsay.
Originally posted by cupocoffee
You already said in this thread that a large sample of people, like 300 people, reporting a positive result would be considered sufficient evidence. Now you're saying it's not. You just contradicted yourself.
And which highly credible independent lab can be trusted to risk their precious credibility and tell the whole world the truth if they DO get positive results? Which labs are guaranteed to not chicken out? If I have one of these 10-coil units tested by the lab you recommended, can you personally guarantee that they will tell the entire world the truth and not chicken out? (And yes I have the money to do it, and yes I am willing to put my money where my mouth is.......)
Intertek is the preferred energy efficiency testing and certification partner of government authorities, industry associations and manufacturers.
We maintain the accreditations, expertise and state-of-the-art testing laboratories around the world to help you meet energy efficiency requirements for global markets.
Global manufacturers, at the request of consumers and in order to meet industry and government regulations, are making energy efficiency a priority. Improving energy performance, developing clean and sustainable energy, and protecting the environment are key initiatives that all manufacturers must undertake if they wish to compete in today’s socially-conscious markets.
If I put in the stipulation that the entire testing process from start to finish must be FILMED so it is 100% transparent, and copies of all the footage given to me, will your lab still go for it, or will they chicken out and run away like others have done.........?
So why don't YOU try building one and see if it works? If proving it is supposed to be so simple, why don't YOU prove it?
There are a number of rotating perpetual motion machines on that link.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
would you care to build the "slinky perpetual machine" documented here?
www.lhup.edu...
Methinks it has a lot of potential.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The problem with this design is, you have to be clever to hide the batteries! And it looks like it would be very hard to replace them!
In Bedini's design on the other hand, you don't even have to hide the batteries, he included them in the schematic! Talk about hiding something in plain sight!
Originally posted by above
It is easier than cake to really test if this is over unity. The fact it is not been done is proof that it is not over unity.
Originally posted by cupocoffee
It has been done, by lots of people. But we are told their opinion doesn't count, it's not true until some NASA or MIT or Stanford people say it's true, something like that. The bar can always be raised higher can't it?
Originally posted by -PLB-
But never by any independent party that has the knowhow how to actually perform the test.
Are there any reports of someone who let the machine run for more than several months continuously without an external power supply?
Originally posted by cupocoffee
You are assuming that no one in the "free energy" camp knows how to test things properly, and I really don't think that's so. At least some of them are qualified engineers and physicists and inventors.
You're an independent party, you don't want to believe them, why not test it for yourself?
There was the Bedini SG Self-Runner which was already linked to. If you want something that runs a very long time as proof, you could try building and testing that unit.
Originally posted by -PLB-
It is not about believe, it is about test results, and the reproduction of them. Show me a test report with results that show over unity. And then show me at least one independent and credible sources that reproduced that exact same test with similar results.
No I will let people that are making the claims do the testing.
And then I will wait for the people making those claims having their results reproduced by an independent party. If they pay me I am willing to do the test, although I would recommend them to find someone with more expertise and credibility.
Originally posted by -PLB-
I don't really find it worth my time to go through that site in the hope to find a creditable test. Just post a direct link to a test including the test setup, the results and an independent party confirming it. Then I can read it and give my opinion about it.
Originally posted by -PLB-
I want the people who claim to have made the one of the most significant discovery in human history to be a bit more serious about it, and put some effort in convincing me.
Its their call. If they don't care thats their problem. But don't expect me to accept their claims.
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by cupocoffee
I want the people who claim to have made the one of the most significant discovery in human history to be a bit more serious about it, and put some effort in convincing me. Its their call. If they don't care thats their problem. But don't expect me to accept their claims.
So basically he's saying "if you are looking for proof this thing works, don't ask me, I took mine apart so I don't have to show it to anybody and I don't need to prove it".
May 17, 2007, Rick Fredrich wrote:
"Replicate at your own risk.....
I have no interest in leaving this setup as constructed as I have long been satisfied with the results along the lines I describe. I don’t need it to prove to myself any further and I do not believe it is necessary to prove to anyone else. And I don’t care to be some person who shows it to the world as that is not my calling in life."
Originally posted by cupocoffee
Why should the most serious effort be spent to convince the people who are the least willing to help? That doesn't really make sense, does it?
Maybe it's you that doesn't care enough. The inventors spend the majority of their time and effort on the people who care enough to actually try the experiments and get involved with replicating and testing. They can hardly be faulted for that, can they?